ANOTHER BLOW TO CYNICISM--JUSTICES ACTUALLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY WRITE :

WERE THE BUSH V. GORE JUSTICES' VIEWS REALLY POLITICAL AND NOT PRINCIPLED? : A Recent Supreme Court Opinion On States' Ability To Regulate Judicial Candidates' Speech May Prove The Cynics Wrong (JULIE HILDEN, Jul. 09, 2002, Find Law)

On June 27, the Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White. There, pursuant to the First Amendment, the Court struck down restrictions that the Minnesota Supreme Court had imposed limiting the ability of candidates for elected state judgeships to voice their views on disputed legal and political issues.

In White, a conservative majority held, in effect, that a state does not have unlimited discretion to decide the way elections within that state will be held. Instead, the Bill of Rights stringently controls how it can do so.

The decision was dwarfed in the press by several other extremely significant end-of-Term opinions on school vouchers and the death penalty. However, it is significant and, indeed, stunning in its own right.

Why? In part, because the Justices' respective opinions in White suggest that their opinions in Bush v. Gore may have been principled and heartfelt - not opportunistic and political, as many have claimed. And that, in turn, suggests that the Court's action in deciding Bush v. Gore--and thus resolving the 2002 election--may have been far more legitimate and properly judicial than is commonly thought.

Hold the presses--you mean the Constitution precedes elections? Posted by Orrin Judd at July 10, 2002 5:07 PM